Square or Round?

Hi all,

I'm thinking about updating some of my filters. I confess, I'm a terrible photographer and rarely carry my filter kit! So lazy! I have a Cokin P system and find it fiddly to use, don't enjoy it, when I do use it I get crazy flare, and so hardly every carry it with me. Truth be told, it's also kind of dated, I bought it to use R/G/B filters on BW film across multiple formats (none of which I still have), and I don't actually have a great selection of ND filters. I only have one grad and one .0.3 ND. (I do have circ polarizers also, but they're not square...)

 

I'm going to be buying a lens soon, and was thinking about updating my ND filters to round filters for each lens, or step up/down rings, depending on the lens. So my question for you all today is does this seem like a good plan, to move away from square filter holder? I feel like I'll carry and use the NDs more often if I just have to screw on a filter, and I'll still be able to use my lens hood which might help with the flare.

 

But what about grads? Do folks use grads or just blend multiple exposures?

 

Thanks in advance, and many apologies if this is an oft asked question...

~Julie

I think the choice really depends on what is most readily available in each format and the extent to which one in fact uses filters. Years ago I tried square but found we just didn't get along, and have used round screw on ever since. They were much more compact, which mattered for me. If you use filters a lot (I don't anymore), and what you intend to use is readily available and doesn't cost an arm & leg, go with whichever format is most comfortable for you to use. If cost of switchover is a factor, do it gradually, so you don't accumulate filters you may not frequently use.

I am a firm believer in having a clear filter on every lens - a practice which has been successful in protecting my lenses for decades. I have a full set of filters in 52 mm for Nikon from film days, which I still use for film. As to digital, I still follow the clear rule, but only have Polarizers and Grad ND in sizes to fit my most used lenses. Between the capability of digital cameras, the camera programming available, and post processing software, I find that I rarely even use those two. That said, when conditions are right (or wrong!) either the Polarizer or Grad can produce remarkable results. Personally, I have always preferred round filters for field use - I also find the others "fiddly".

I am a firm believer in having a clear filter on every lens - a practice which has been successful in protecting my lenses for decades. .

Yes, I do have clear filters on the lenses for protection! I shoot a lot on hikes. Seems like rocks, trees, streams, etc are easy targets for falling cameras.

The main advantage I see of round filters is that they're available coated or multi-coated.

 

To the best of my knowledge, nobody makes coated square resin filters, which is probably the cause of your flare - or at least not helping.

 

Round ND grads? Not very flexible WRT placement of the split.

 

Round ND grads? Not very flexible WRT placement of the split.

Exactly why I'm uncertain about shifting to round. But that's why I wonder if post processing can fill in the gap. I've done a fair amount of exposure blending and wondering if it takes the place of the need for ND grads.

Neither

Don't use filters....

I do use lens hoods always, ONLY OEM Nikon Hoods! Screw In type,

Some were hard to find because Nikon liked snap-on early on, and made some screw-on for popular lenses.

The Screw-on for my 1971 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor S was a hard one to find. Because collectors buy then up quickly.

 

Nikon Hoods are fluted, not straight.

Don't use filters....

I'll match the condition of front elements of lenses I've used for half a century against anything you have used for five. I understand it is a fundamental divide, and there is no way to "convert" unbelievers, but then I really don't care.

Flashing back to Grad ND, and Polarizers, as stated, once in a while, very useful.

Neither

Don't use filters....

I do use lens hoods always, ONLY OEM Nikon Hoods! Screw In type,

Some were hard to find because Nikon liked snap-on early on, and made some screw-on for popular lenses.

The Screw-on for my 1971 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor S was a hard one to find. Because collectors buy then up quickly.

 

Nikon Hoods are fluted, not straight.

 

Epoxy or screw the spring mechanism and it will behave like a screw on hood.

Nikon's old screw-in round hoods are some of the worst designs you can find. Round hoods in general are totally inefficient compared to modern petal or 'tulip' designs.

 

At least the clip-on type can be reversed onto the lens for easy storage, and with modern lenses you've no choice but to use a bayonet type hood.

 

WRT post-processing versus grads: IME shooting RAW does away with the need for a grad in most cases, or for multi-exposures. A second 'under exposed' layer can easily be created and selectively blended with a lighter layer. The divide can be made a complex curve that follows subject contours and the gradation can be as hard or gentle as needed.

 

My preferred method is to use a soft-edged eraser brush to rub through from one layer to reveal another underneath. Both layers usually created from one RAW original.

I think a grad yellow, with a snap on mount for my 1927 Voigtänder Bergheil is the only square filter I own. But I haven't used it

Is there no compendium lens shade that would go with your square filters?

thinking about updating my ND filters to round filters for each lens, or step up/down rings, depending on the lens

Sorry, but that looks like overkill in my eyes.

Why do you want to own what kind (AKA "strength") of ND filter? - Rummaging through my gear I come to the conclusion(s):

• I don't need NDs for freaking fast glass. - Zero intention to bring a truck load of studio strobes somewhere to overpower the bright noon's sun and to also shoot at f0.95 / 1.2 / ... or even f2.8.
  
• If I wanted to do "night" shots by day, with ultra strong NDs I surely won't grab a TTL focusing camera if there is a chance to avoid it. On film the TLRs come to mind, in general: Leica M. - Both share a convenient and inexpensive 46mm filter thread. With a TTL focusing camera on the tripod I'd love to have an option to insert the filter just in time for the exposure. The Linhof lens hood / system filter holder has a slot to take round filters, but I'd probably be fine with square ones in such a situation too. (Un)screwing a filter all the time and for every shot would be too much hassle for my taste.
  
• I might get tempted to use moderate NDs when there is no other way to tame ancient strobes. But in my case that means TLRs & Ms once again or studio workhorse primes on SLRs.
  
• I don't see a real appeal of ND grads. - Where in the world do you find even horizons likely to work with them? A darkened sky separated by a white line from the ground never looked really great.
  

Make up your mind where you'll need NDs. Outdoors they are IMHO more a video than a stills thing.

Try a 2 minute exposure to blur clouds/water, or 'disappear' crowds from an urban landscape without using a strong ND or closing down to a diffraction-inducing aperture.

Try a 2 minute exposure to blur clouds/water, or 'disappear' crowds from an urban landscape without using a strong ND or closing down to a diffraction-inducing aperture.

 

Yes, this is the reason I want and ND option that I might actually carry and use.

I don't see a real appeal of ND grads. - Where in the world do you find even horizons likely to work with them?

My sentiments exactly. I experimented with rectangular ND grads, but the size of the filters and clumsiness of the holders quickly dissuaded me. I have half a dozen round ND filters in various strengths and diameters, and a handful of step-up adapters, which are easy to carry and deploy. Focusing with an SLR is nearly impossible, but an EVF compensates for the density, and focuses with easy, auto or manual.

 

As for ND grads, I can get the same effect with HDR brackets, and tone-mapping alone works well when you have a 15 stop dynamic range (Sony A7Rii). I have seen too many mountain landscape, taken with an ND grad filter, making the Valleys look like a Los Angeles smog day. Early versions of HDR software put a bright border on an irregular horizon. Modern software (Photomatix, AuroraHD) have settings which eliminate these artifacts.

I'll match the condition of front elements of lenses I've used for half a century against anything you have used for five. I understand it is a fundamental divide, and there is no way to "convert" unbelievers, but then I really don't care.

Flashing back to Grad ND, and Polarizers, as stated, once in a while, very useful.

 

You're on!

I cup the palm of my hand over the front of my lens, when just walking about.

And I don't let my camera "swing about freely" around my neck.

I buy all my lenses used, and I check the REAR element first.... That is where a scratch CAN affect IQ, a lot more than a front scratch can.

The front element and block is for gathering light then guiding the light to the REAR Block., The REAR Block focuses the light on the image plane, therefore any scratches on that can affect IQ in sharpness. The FRONT element scratches affect flare mostly, a good lens hood will offset that.

Nikon's old screw-in round hoods are some of the worst designs you can find. Round hoods in general are totally inefficient compared to modern petal or 'tulip' designs.

 

At least the clip-on type can be reversed onto the lens for easy storage, and with modern lenses you've no choice but to use a bayonet type hood.

 

WRT post-processing versus grads: IME shooting RAW does away with the need for a grad in most cases, or for multi-exposures. A second 'under exposed' layer can easily be created and selectively blended with a lighter layer. The divide can be made a complex curve that follows subject contours and the gradation can be as hard or gentle as needed.

 

My preferred method is to use a soft-edged eraser brush to rub through from one layer to reveal another underneath. Both layers usually created from one RAW original.

 

I only use PRIMES, no need for FLOWER hoods, BTW, Flower hoods are made to save costs. the design is the least amount needed to give minimum lens shading from light. that is why the side pedals are so small to prevent corner darkening so the upper and lower pedals can be made longer. Only good for short Zooms, because it allows the top and bottom pedals to be longer than a round hood on a short zoom could provide. But after about the 100mm (fov), Flower Hoods are not needed. The smaller pedals make sure the corners are not darkened, but they are only effective for shorter focal lengths.

I only use PRIMES, no need for FLOWER hoods, BTW, Flower hoods are made to save costs. the design is the least amount needed to give minimum lens shading from light. that is why the side pedals are so small to prevent corner darkening so the upper and lower pedals can be made longer. Only good for short Zooms, because it allows the top and bottom pedals to be longer than a round hood on a short zoom could provide. But after about the 100mm (fov), Flower Hoods are not needed. The smaller pedals make sure the corners are not darkened, but they are only effective for shorter focal lengths.

 

I've never seen a flower or a lens hood with "pedals"......

Since '68

Since '53

Still flawless, front & back.

You're on!

I cup the palm of my hand over the front of my lens, when just walking about.

And I don't let my camera "swing about freely" around my neck.

I buy all my lenses used, and I check the REAR element first.... That is where a scratch CAN affect IQ, a lot more than a front scratch can.

The front element and block is for gathering light then guiding the light to the REAR Block., The REAR Block focuses the light on the image plane, therefore any scratches on that can affect IQ in sharpness. The FRONT element scratches affect flare mostly, a good lens hood will offset that.

How well does a rear element hold up without a camera body to protect it?

"I only use PRIMES, no need for FLOWER hoods, BTW, Flower hoods are made to save costs. the design is the least amount needed to give minimum lens shading from light."

 

- Wrong, wrong and wrong again!

Petal hoods are most effective with a prime lens. The cutouts are not designed to cut costs or save material, but to give a rectangular aperture when viewed by the lens.

 

A properly designed petal hood gives maximum protection from flare, not minimal; second only to a rectangular hood of the correct dimensions, or a compendium hood fitted with a suitable matte.

 

The efficacy of a hood is easily tested by putting a finger on its rim. If a slightly protruding fingertip can be seen in the (SLR/DSLR) viewfinder all round the hood perimeter, then the hood is doing its job properly. This can never be the case with a cylindrical or flowerpot style hood, since it gaps away from the rectangular frame outline at top, bottom and at each side. Simple geometry.

Edited April 14, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

How well does a rear element hold up without a camera body to protect it?

I use Back lens caps for storage.

"I only use PRIMES, no need for FLOWER hoods, BTW, Flower hoods are made to save costs. the design is the least amount needed to give minimum lens shading from light."

 

- Wrong, wrong and wrong again!

Petal hoods are most effective with a prime lens. The cutouts are not designed to cut costs or save material, but to give a rectangular aperture when viewed by the lens.

 

A properly designed petal hood gives maximum protection from flare, not minimal; second only to a rectangular hood of the correct dimensions, or a compendium hood fitted with a suitable matte.

 

The efficacy of a hood is easily tested by putting a finger on its rim. If a slightly protruding fingertip can be seen in the (SLR/DSLR) viewfinder all round the hood perimeter, then the hood is doing its job properly. This can never be the case with a cylindrical or flowerpot style hood, since it gaps away from the rectangular frame outline at top, bottom and at each side. Simple geometry.

And who makes FLOWER HOODS for Primes? generic sized in different mm screw-ins.... for 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm.... FF lenses

So we agree the rear element should be protected at all times......

Why not do the same for the front?

"And who makes FLOWER HOODS for Primes?"

 

- For modern wide-angle primes they're the only option, and the correct term is 'petal' or 'tulip' hoods BTW. 'Flower' hood could easily be confused with the flowerpot shape of an old-fashioned frustrum or lampshade-shaped hood.

 

Petal hoods aren't generally made for standard or longer lenses, because makers feel there's no need for the complex shape, which is actually more expensive to produce. However, a decent lens shade should exclude as much non-image forming light as possible, and only a rectangular or petal shape can do this. Cylindrical hoods allow a circle of light to fall outside the frame area, and this light bounces around the dark chamber to create flare and lower contrast.

And who makes FLOWER HOODS for Primes? generic sized in different mm screw-ins.... for 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm.... FF lenses

 

There is at least one maker of "tulip" type lens hoods in varying filter ring diameters. One such label is "Pro Master". They make hoods in sizes from 49mm to 77mm. I'm quite sure that those are generically designed, and packaged for a number of sellers.